My Sources

 NBC News

Mike Brunker is the author of this NBC article. He has a very long history of investigative journalism and previously worked at MSNBC. He has been with NBC News for almost two decades. To have such a long career, especially at a high profile media outlet, proves at least some credibility.

That being said, NBC and other news outlets tend to dramatize stories or use other tactics to increase view count. The article was written on Jan. 5, 2016. This was only a few days after the lawsuit was settled in federal court. This seems to be the main reason the article was written as there were no similar incidences recently.

This article was grouped with other stories, as a type of "major stories of the day" section. This limited length restricted the content, providing very basic information: major parties involved, outcome, and background.

About Lumosity

This source is straight from Lumosity's website. There is no date or author listed. If this was an article, credibility would be lost. However, since the information comes directly from the website, Lumosity, as a company, is assumed to be the author. The date is also not very relevant since the information is meant to be applied indefinitely.

The main reason this source is important is because it gives statements about the type of research they do. I wanted to compare what Lumosity said with what the accusing researchers found. This information also forms their position in the controversy, standing by their researchers and brand.

Stipulated Final Judgement and Order

This source is an official document produced after the lawsuit was settled. The author is the FTC, an official department of the U.S. government. This provides a lot of credibility. The document provided is a product of many regulatory trials and endured a thorough process to reach the finalized form.

It was filed Jan. 8, 2016. Again, there were no related stories in that time period. However, even if there were, the FTC is a government department and should not have been influenced by anything other than the actions of Lumosity.

This lengthy document specifically outlines what Lumosity is being charged. The settlement is also heavily detailed, describing exactly what Lumosity/Lumos Labs and its co-founders need to do to resolve the issue. The rest of the document describes various legal terms not particularly relevant to the story at hand.

Lumosity Press

This source comes from Lumosity's website and gives "Press info" and "Fun facts". The information given is very basic and simply provides more context for the consumer. This page provides facts like how may people have played the games, location, languages available, etc. The author is assumed to be Lumosity, as a whole, with no specific person as an author.

Coming from Lumosity's website, the information could be picked selectively, omitting the information that would make the company look bad. They could have also skewed the facts to make the information seem better.

Gizmodo

This article comes from a website called Gizmodo, and was written by Kate Knibbs. She is not very accredited, with Gizmodo being a site where anyone can seem to post articles. The website uses a social aspect where everyone can follow one another. This somewhat decreases the credibility because anyone can write these articles, they do not have to be particularly accredited with degrees or experience.

The article was written on Oct. 23, 2014. This is the same time period most of the other articles were written in. This is when the FTC first charged Lumosity with the lawsuit. Gizmodo was most likely trying to report on the story as soon as possible.

Stanford Center on Longevity

The Stanford Center on Longevity is a part of Stanford University and took part in the research that exposed Lumosity. This publication was a collective effort of 70 researchers. This increases credibility because I know the information is coming straight from the source.

The publication was made on Oct. 20, 2014, starting the whole series of events.

The information explained depicts the research that took place. Besides all the scientific explanation, the researchers also take the opportunity to address the problem of false advertising in general. Calling out companies that promote increased brain cognition.

About the Center

This page is also from the Stanford Center on Longevity, but focuses on the research center itself. The information [resented describes what kind of research the center takes part in and provides information about how the center was founded. This page was very helpful when describing the stakeholders present.

Like the Lumosity page, there is no date posted on this page because the information is relevant at all times.

The New York Times

The New York Times is a very credible source, well known throughout the country. There was no specific author, with the article written by "the associative press".

Like some other articles I found, this story was published on Jan. 5, 2016. This is shortly after the settlement was achieved in court.

The actual content is very short in length and provides some basic information. With the New York Times being a very credible source, I used this article to compare the larger components of the story to other less credible sources such as Gizmodo.

Ironman Mode

This article was written by Zeke Iddon. He uses a lot of personal opinion in this article, commenting on the story more than reporting it. This decreases the credibility somewhat since the views presented are very perspective based. They do not depict the story in an unbiased way, inevitably presenting the information in a less factual manor.

The actual website is also not a very well known website, also decreasing the credibility compared to other sources like the New York Times.

The Guardian

This article was written by Elizabeth Day. Elizabeth is a writer from Observer New Review and wrote a guest piece for The Guardian. The Guardian is a website that writes a lot of reviews, supporting the personal opinions of of the authors. This usually decreases credibility as the voices strays away from an unbiased perspective.

This article was written on April 20, 2013. This date is the one outlier of all my sources and occurs because the author, Elizabeth day, decided to test the website for herself. This is a great source because it occurs before the entire controversy. Interestingly she claims to have improved her cognitive ability (but only while performing the practiced brain games, the Stanford Center on Longevity would argue).